Bombay High Court
CP/133/2015 of RAMESH VITTHALRAO BADE Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS on 9 October 2026
PETITION NO. 133 OF 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 908 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 133 OF 2015 IN WP/9007/2012 Ramesh Vitthalrao Bade Versus State Of Maharashtra And 4 Others __________________________________________________________ • Adv. Kingre Gajanan
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 908 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 133 OF 2015 IN WP/9007/2012 Ramesh Vitthalrao Bade Versus State Of Maharashtra And 4 Others __________________________________________________________ • Adv. Kingre Gajanan Bhanudas for the Petitioner - Absent • Mr. N. B. Patil, AGP for State • Adv. Shelke Appasaheb A. for Respondent No. 5 - Absent __________________________________________________________ CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 09, 2026 ORDER : [PER VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.]
None for the petitioner.
In the order of which disobedience is alleged, Gram Panchayat was directed to remove the encroachment. Subsequently, the steps were taken by the Gram Panchayat to remove the encroachment and the notices were issued to the encroachers. One such encroacher has challenged the notice by way of Writ Petition No. 11078 of 2017, wherein this Court has granted status quo. In view of the status quo Komal Kamble Page| 1 of 2 2026:BHC-AUG:48772-DB
granted by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, nothing survives in the present contempt petition.
Liberty is granted to the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings after the disposal of Writ Petition No. 11078 of 2017.
With this liberty, the contempt petition is disposed of. (VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) JUDGE (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) JUDGE Komal Kamble
Page| 2 of 2